Iolo/Penderyn
Verified User
I don't approve of colonialism, and no-one kicked me out of any English colonies, kid.
We were discussing the way your Constitution encouraged the murder of escaping forced labour weren't we?
Why was 2nd amendment written?
- Thread starter Evmetro
- Start date
I don't approve of colonialism, and no-one kicked me out of any English colonies, kid.
We were discussing the way your Constitution encouraged the murder of escaping forced labour weren't we?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
kid LOL...........ok
point to the part of my Constitution that encouraged that.............
and no, we actually weren't discussing that.........
The second was written because the fledgling country could not afford a standing army of sufficient size and had to rely on citizen-soldiers. Crazy ass gun nuts say it was to protect us against the government. We were so weak that our existence was in constant peril like the war of 1812 showed. We were weak.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!
How is he wrong? As he noted, the War of 1812 proves him correct
SmarterthanYou
rebel
the war of 1812 is irrelevant, since it occurred AFTER the 2nd Amendment was ratified. COUNTLESS pieces of historical documentation from the founders clearly state that the reason the 2nd was written was to ensure that their new central government could not overpower the states and rule by fiat.......in other words, the security of a free state. therefore, that right shall not be infringed.
Not correct. It shows clearly that we were not able to stop invaders from Europe. The Brits tromped us and burned down Washington. All we had to protect us was citizen soldiers.
The Revolutionary war was fought with citizen soldiers. That is why we made sure guns were available...oh and they were a well-regulated militia.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
so we now know you have no abililty to follow a timeline.......................
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
He's wrong because that wasn't the intent of the 2nd Amendment. You might also look at the little known 3rd Amendment. The two go together. The Founders were very wary of a large standing army because of their experience with the British Army and how the British trampled citizen's perceived Rights.
The intent of the 2nd was to provide for an armed citizenry that could be mobilized with self-owned firearms as the militia to supplement a small standing army. One of the more important parts of the standing army was they would provide things like artillery (expensive and requiring more training) and the like.
The United States Congress could have funded a large army, but to what end? It wasn't needed. Interestingly, the War of 1812 demonstrated that calling up the militia was no substitute for a well trained and organized army. It was just most of the time the US had no need for a large army. There were no particular enemies at the time that could engage America on short notice.
Not at all. As I said, the guns were allowed because we had citizens fighting for the country on our turf. 1812 showed that. You really cannot understand that? It took citizen-soldiers to drive the Brits out. That is proof of concept.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
so your view of history has been corrupted. The framers of the constitution and the bill of rights were only concerned with the knowledge that a standing army could trample a mans rights.......their firsthand experience with their former government, the king, magnified this. Therefore, they prohibited their new central government from EVER having any power or authority over their arms..........whether it was so they could assist their standing army or resist their standing army is irrelevant and in no way did they ever think that ONLY those 'well regulated' could have arms for specific purposes.........in fact, the constitution even provides for congress to arm and train the citizens for that assistance purpose without requiring a uniform..............
I'm left believing that the only reason you cowards are adamant about government controlling the population is that you're terrified of the freedom of others........there is no other scenario where that comes in to play
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
The Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights because Obama was trying to outlaw aardvark hunting in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus.
Thank God, the founders came to their senses. As a result, North America is not overrun by cracker-eating aardvarks.
Thank God, the founders came to their senses. As a result, North America is not overrun by cracker-eating aardvarks.
Well-regulated...
Not be infringed.
The interesting part about our 2nd Amendment and applying it to today is what is well-regulated and what is not infringed.
I would imagine that few what any weapons available to the military available to average citizens. So, the debate is where is the line?
I don't have an answer. It is complicated. However, I do believe a waiting period is a simple thing. I personally don't understand the fight against a waiting period.
Fyi, for those looking for respectful discussion, I lost a friend to suicide. A 24 hour waiting period may have saved him.
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
Not be infringed.
The interesting part about our 2nd Amendment and applying it to today is what is well-regulated and what is not infringed.
I would imagine that few what any weapons available to the military available to average citizens. So, the debate is where is the line?
I don't have an answer. It is complicated. However, I do believe a waiting period is a simple thing. I personally don't understand the fight against a waiting period.
Fyi, for those looking for respectful discussion, I lost a friend to suicide. A 24 hour waiting period may have saved him.
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
SmarterthanYou
rebel
we refuse to comply. your move
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Except, the citizen-soldiers didn't "drive the Brits out." Time and again during this war the militia balked at taking the offensive, often refused to operate out of the state or even away from home. They proved poorly trained and unable to stand up to British regular troops. About the only thing that saved the US was initially, the British had few good troops in Canada--the 49th Regiment of foot known as the "Green Tigers" due to the green facings on their uniforms was the only really top notch unit they had.
The whole concept of the militia was to defend the country. That goes today as much as it did back then. But the framers were concerned that a large professional army represented a potential threat to the government and nation as it could decide to take control. Thus, the idea that the citizenry themselves would provide the bulk of the defense.
The problem is the proliferation of firearms and their ease of access. So, yeah, firearms are the problem in that respect. That’s why the US has the highest rate of gun violence in industrialized countries.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
there are over 300 MILLION firearms in the US owned by over 80 MILLION people.......if guns were the problem, you wouldn't be alive today
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
No, the problem is that criminals use weapons as part of their tool set for committing crimes. Elimination of firearms doesn't solve this as Britain has proved. Criminals resort to knives. Ban those, and they resort to improvised weapons instead. So, citing the US having the highest rate of gun violence is meaningless. All you do by confiscating the guns is change the weapon of choice.
That's what you get when you ban guns and knife crimes skyrocket. But you can go to a home improvement store in Britain and buy this no questions asked:
That is known in the US in the trades as a "stab saw" for cutting drywall. Guess what else it can be used for...
When you look at nations around the world, murder rates don't have much to do with gun ownership...
https://www.undispatch.com/countries-with-the-highest-murder-rates-ranked-in-a-new-un-report/
In the US, the most dangerous cities are generally those with:
Democrat government
Strict gun control laws
High percentage minority populations, particularly Blacks.
If gun control works so well, why isn't it working in these cities?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
to liberals, thats just incrementalism......they don't care about gun violence, they don't even care about gun deaths. what they really want is a populace that has to totally rely on government for their safety while relieving government of any obligation to that safety